The Tory campaign has been astonishingly inept and I agree with the comments about what this has shown about May's very considerable limitations. The fact is, however, that the Tory share of the vote is down 2-3% since the campaign started. UKIP continue to have no pulse and the vast majority of the Kippers remain on board.
Maybe her campaign isnt that bad then? The main 'mistake' in terms of public support seems to have been on social care. But at least she can claim a mandate for her changes now. And she's still on course to win a respectable majority.
Refusal to debate Corbyn looked arrogant, fox hunting was a mistake setting back the image of the party once again (cost the vote of one of my daughters for a start), the wriggling around on Social Care policy was embarrassing and the less said about her speeches (other than the one immediately after Manchester) the better.
The vast majority of her support suffer all this because they think the alternative is genuinely appalling and a real threat to the country. It is some way short of a personal endorsement.
The Tory campaign has been astonishingly inept and I agree with the comments about what this has shown about May's very considerable limitations. The fact is, however, that the Tory share of the vote is down 2-3% since the campaign started. UKIP continue to have no pulse and the vast majority of the Kippers remain on board.
Maybe her campaign isnt that bad then? The main 'mistake' in terms of public support seems to have been on social care. But at least she can claim a mandate for her changes now. And she's still on course to win a respectable majority.
Refusal to debate Corbyn looked arrogant, fox hunting was a mistake setting back the image of the party once again (cost the vote of one of my daughters for a start), the wriggling around on Social Care policy was embarrassing and the less said about her speeches (other than the one immediately after Manchester) the better.
The vast majority of her support suffer all this because they think the alternative is genuinely appalling and a real threat to the country. It is some way short of a personal endorsement.
It is quite striking that considering the hordes of PB Tories, few step forward to defend her here.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Non tradeable bonds. Then you can defer the interest or principal repayment and it becomes a matter of default rather than anything else.
If they were to try and implement this it would end up in court (and would shut down the capital markets)
I was about to make a simpler point. Forcing the shares into bonds would make a chunk of capital illiquid, piss off foreign shareholders and (as you say) end up in court. Not to say it's affects on Brexit.
Also it would harm private pensions surely as it would depress the stock market as well as tying up any funds invested by pension funds
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
With low interest rates it would be good for the government cash flow in the short run. You could use the profit to reduce the deficit. It's a bit more complicated than that, but it isn't really face palm material.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
What a depressing poll. 65%/21% want to bring back hanging.
There is nothing in the small print that suggests this is going to be anything other than an epic landslide for the Tories. They score 43%/24% on the economy and that makes it game set and match.
Only the dilettante wealthy can afford the luxury of voting on social issues and there aren't enough of them. Brexit is an exception but thanks to Labour's ambivalence that has effectively been neutralised. Terrorism is a seven day wonder and most realise it isn't in the control of politicians.
I agree about hanging. Noone has the right to take someone elses life. There have been too many wrongful executions.. America is littered with them.
Support for capital punishment tends to rise sharply after an atrocity, before falling back.
Indeed but its still terrifying so many people think like that.
If the public was asked, I suspect you would get a very large majority in favour of hanging all suicide bombers....
I remember when Ian Brady was fighting for the right to die the public overwhelmingly said he should be forced to live.
Fickle lot, the public....
I think we expect too much from "the public" especially in terms of rational thought and analysis of complex issues. By definition half of the population has an IQ of under 100 coupled with a disinterest in things political so why should we be surprised that in "our" opinion they make irrational choices.
Why do you think people on this forum are in the half with IQs above 100?
According to the Scotland Votes online seat calculator, the Tories would go from one MP, David Mundell, to an incredible 17.
One KLAXON is not enough..
This is a comparatively rare occasion when the scathing comments of Theuniondivvie, scotslass and Malcolm in Westminster voting intentions and multiple klaxon toots will be absolutely correct.
I am off for a few days' well-earned holiday in Devon, so I shall sadly not be around to astonish them by agreeing with them! I hope to be back on here in a week's time.
The Tory campaign has been astonishingly inept and I agree with the comments about what this has shown about May's very considerable limitations. The fact is, however, that the Tory share of the vote is down 2-3% since the campaign started. UKIP continue to have no pulse and the vast majority of the Kippers remain on board.
Maybe her campaign isnt that bad then? The main 'mistake' in terms of public support seems to have been on social care. But at least she can claim a mandate for her changes now. And she's still on course to win a respectable majority.
Refusal to debate Corbyn looked arrogant, fox hunting was a mistake setting back the image of the party once again (cost the vote of one of my daughters for a start), the wriggling around on Social Care policy was embarrassing and the less said about her speeches (other than the one immediately after Manchester) the better.
The vast majority of her support suffer all this because they think the alternative is genuinely appalling and a real threat to the country. It is some way short of a personal endorsement.
It is quite striking that considering the hordes of PB Tories, few step forward to defend her here.
Yeah but how many defended Cameron and Osborne? The economically dry socially liberal not obsessed with gays and Europe party was only quorate because we didn't have a constitution.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The underlying basis for the Labour plan is to use the "profits" to cut prices. Despite the fact 1) that prices are heavily regulated at the moment and 2) there might possibly be a link between profits and prices...
Perhaps Parliament should pass a law denying the right of suicide bombers to a (religious?) burial. Would that prevent them seeing the virgins in heaven?
Just as a matter of interest - what do female suicide bombers get out of the deal?
I'm not sure but for that matter what would the male suicide bombers do with 72 Ann Widdecombes?
FPT
Roger what to you make of Jezza now ?
Three weeks ago he was a donkey, now he looks like a well hung one.
The PB poll flouncing ignores the fact that if the polling is correct he'll do better than deadhead Ed
The poll movement hasnt been so much Mrs M losing support, but Jezza picking it up to close the gap.
Labour should put up a shrine to Tim Farron for being so crap and allowing the party a chance to survive.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Borrowing money cheaply (using "bonds") to buy assets is surely good business. Selling gilts to finance day-to-day, operational spending, even on the NHS, is more questionable. It is the other side of the Conservative case against Mrs Thatcher's privatisations. When Macmillan likened it to selling the family silver, his objection was not to privatisation per se but that the proceeds were being spent not reinvested.
The Tory campaign has been astonishingly inept and I agree with the comments about what this has shown about May's very considerable limitations. The fact is, however, that the Tory share of the vote is down 2-3% since the campaign started. UKIP continue to have no pulse and the vast majority of the Kippers remain on board.
Maybe her campaign isnt that bad then? The main 'mistake' in terms of public support seems to have been on social care. But at least she can claim a mandate for her changes now. And she's still on course to win a respectable majority.
Refusal to debate Corbyn looked arrogant, fox hunting was a mistake setting back the image of the party once again (cost the vote of one of my daughters for a start), the wriggling around on Social Care policy was embarrassing and the less said about her speeches (other than the one immediately after Manchester) the better.
The vast majority of her support suffer all this because they think the alternative is genuinely appalling and a real threat to the country. It is some way short of a personal endorsement.
Hmm... I think refusal to debate was smart. As I think David Herdson said, when you're 4-0 up at half time you don't throw on another striker.
Fox hunting I guess was an error - I still am amazed people vote on the basis of that issue but then what do I know...
But ultimately she will win big, probably biggest Tory majority for 25 years. I think she is just suffering from some very over inflated expectations.
What a depressing poll. 65%/21% want to bring back hanging.
There is nothing in the small print that suggests this is going to be anything other than an epic landslide for the Tories. They score 43%/24% on the economy and that makes it game set and match.
Only the dilettante wealthy can afford the luxury of voting on social issues and there aren't enough of them. Brexit is an exception but thanks to Labour's ambivalence that has effectively been neutralised. Terrorism is a seven day wonder and most realise it isn't in the control of politicians.
I agree about hanging. Noone has the right to take someone elses life. There have been too many wrongful executions.. America is littered with them.
Support for capital punishment tends to rise sharply after an atrocity, before falling back.
Indeed but its still terrifying so many people think like that.
If the public was asked, I suspect you would get a very large majority in favour of hanging all suicide bombers....
I remember when Ian Brady was fighting for the right to die the public overwhelmingly said he should be forced to live.
Fickle lot, the public....
I think we expect too much from "the public" especially in terms of rational thought and analysis of complex issues. By definition half of the population has an IQ of under 100 coupled with a disinterest in things political so why should we be surprised that in "our" opinion they make irrational choices.
Why do you think people on this forum are in the half with IQs above 100?
I don't but they are clearly not disinterested in politics or they wouldn't be here,
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The role of government is not to invest cash it doesn't have in the hope of yielding dividends with which funding public services.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The role of government is not to invest cash it doesn't have in the hope of yielding dividends with which funding public services.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
Yes - I agree this is what the debate should focus on.
But first you have to explain to people - this doesn't mean we have to raise taxes by £70bn and it doesn't mean we are taking £70bn away from the NHS.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Railways could be re nationalised simply by waiting for the franchises to expire and replacing them by a NFP arrangement. I can't see the others happening. Not only because Corbyn won't actually win this election. Nationalisation may sound a nice to have in isolation but it's not going to be anyone's priority. This is why Corbyn isn't a leader. He's not prepared to make the necessary compromises to see things happen.
If Jedda scores a higher % than Ed that is more an inditement of the left than Mrs May.
But he won't - sub 30 is my prediction. Are there vote share betting markets anywhere ?
Everywhere. 10/3 at BetfairSB, provided you assume 25% as a floor (or cover lower at 16/1). Plenty of PB'ers were predicting the 16/1 shot when this campaign started!
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Paying £x for a business does not make it worth that much, you have things like goodwill included that would have to be impaired. Plus once the profit motive is removed will the profitability stay the same, will you be able to pay the executives the same if their pay is public knowledge, if gas prices rise say would they be able to raise prices (no, that is the answer).
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The role of government is not to invest cash it doesn't have in the hope of yielding dividends with which funding public services.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
The experience of private versus public ownership is - with the possible exception of the railways - wholly in favour of the market doing a better job than Govt.
And even the railways - British Rail was hardly the yardstick by which all Govt. ownership should be judged.
Given the parameters that TSE has set out, I think a lead of 52-98 would be best. I don't want Nick Timothy thinking that the result vindicates him.
Agree - I'd be perfectly happy with that - enough to govern with but a salutary reminder for any ideologues that Tories and ideology usually ends in tears...
As it is now obvious to everyone but a yet to be determined number of Labour members that it is Corbyn who is delivering the Tories their victory, a White Cliffs of Dover, We Will Never Surrender, Rule Britannia, it's all the EU's fault no Brexit deal narrative will be much harder to sell to the public than the Tories were clearly hoping would be the case. That will create some very interesting political dynamics over the coming five years and put a lot more pressure on May to deliver on her promises.
I would disagree. It seems Jezza will raise the Labour vote share, so it will not be him to blame for a May victory. Nonetheless I expect him to be replaced within a couple of years, simply due to age. He may well be an effective LOTO for a period of Brexit.
I reckon on a Tory majority of about 75 myself (76 if that keeps TSE happy!).
TM was a useless and ineffective Home Sec, she has been a petulant and inflexible autocratic PM for nearly a year, and been in charge of a supremely useless campaign team. None of this bodes well for the next few years in office.
Labour's vote share may increase. But England is now a two party country once more. So the best we can say is that Corbyn perhaps will not drstroy the Labour brand completely. He has proved incapable of taking on a truly abysmal Tory leader and PM.
The Tory share is likely to increase by about 7-8% from GE 2015. The UKIP share has decreased by about the same amount. May's hard Brexit strategy to attract back UKIP voters has worked.
The Labour share under Corbyn is likely to increase by about 3% from GE 2015 - a good result but not enough to counter May's UKIP strategy which any Labour leader could do little to counter.
Corbyn lost the confidence of Labour MPs, not because of his policies (which are popular) or his character, but because they thought he was a loser (for his party and themselves). But it is hard to blame Corbyn for the success of May's UKIP strategy and apart from that he has done well. I think he will survive.
As May hits trouble with the next recession and with her UKIP support as she makes necessary concessions in the EU negotiations, Labour will take the lead again in the polls and Corbyn will finally be seen as a winner. He will hand over the leadership at a time of his own choosing.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The role of government is not to invest cash it doesn't have in the hope of yielding dividends with which funding public services.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
Yes - I agree this is what the debate should focus on.
But first you have to explain to people - this doesn't mean we have to raise taxes by £70bn and it doesn't mean we are taking £70bn away from the NHS.
That's true. The balance sheet balances out on capital.
I'm all for it borrowing for infrastructural improvements. If the plan was to nationalise water so that the government could make necessary infrastructural improvements that would be impossible with the current ownership arrangements, then fine. That's not what is on offer though, is it?
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Paying £x for a business does not make it worth that much, you have things like goodwill included that would have to be impaired. Plus once the profit motive is removed will the profitability stay the same, will you be able to pay the executives the same if their pay is public knowledge, if gas prices rise say would they be able to raise prices (no, that is the answer).
Not to mention the effect of medium and long term investment in the infrastructure - the neglect of which in so many areas pre-privatisation is at least part of the explanation for the prices that people have to pay now. Of course things could be nationalised and run as self financing "arms length" Government Agencies, but would that be sustainable in the real world?
If the utility companies were nationalised I think you could pretty much guarantee that within a very few years they would be making a loss rather than a profit with their services being subsidised out of the public purse which would still be straining to find the service charge of those bonds. It is a ridiculous idea.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The role of government is not to invest cash it doesn't have in the hope of yielding dividends with which funding public services.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
The experience of private versus public ownership is - with the possible exception of the railways - wholly in favour of the market doing a better job than Govt.
And even the railways - British Rail was hardly the yardstick by which all Govt. ownership should be judged.
It's also the case that not all railway franchises are alike. There are obviously particular problems with particular franchises that wouldn't necessarily disappear with change of ownership (whether to public or other private sector)
According to the Scotland Votes online seat calculator, the Tories would go from one MP, David Mundell, to an incredible 17.
One KLAXON is not enough..
This is a comparatively rare occasion when the scathing comments of Theuniondivvie, scotslass and Malcolm in Westminster voting intentions and multiple klaxon toots will be absolutely correct.
I am off for a few days' well-earned holiday in Devon, so I shall sadly not be around to astonish them by agreeing with them! I hope to be back on here in a week's time.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Paying £x for a business does not make it worth that much, you have things like goodwill included that would have to be impaired. Plus once the profit motive is removed will the profitability stay the same, will you be able to pay the executives the same if their pay is public knowledge, if gas prices rise say would they be able to raise prices (no, that is the answer).
Not to mention the effect of medium and long term investment in the infrastructure - the neglect of which in so many areas pre-privatisation is at least part of the explanation for the prices that people have to pay now. Of course things could be nationalised and run as self financing "arms length" Government Agencies, but would that be sustainable in the real world?
They could be set up that way, but the newspapers would have a field day lashing the party of the day for their faults and failures about which they could do little. Look at network rail, arms length but it's project management has been awful and who do we blame for it: the government!
C 45, Lab 35, LD 9, UKIP 4, GRN 1, SNP 4.9, PC 0.6, Others 0.6 in Electoral Calculus gives
C 368, Lab 204, LD 4, SNP 55, PC 1, NI 18 Majority 86
"I'm reticent about projecting beyond a Tory lead of 10%, because the biggest lead in the 1945-1970 data set is Labour's 8.6% advantage in 1945, and so it's possible that the maths will begin to break down as any possible Conservative surge breaks against a firewall of extremely safe Labour seats in urban areas"
Does your archive not have the 1983 election when the Tories had a 16% lead.
How contemptuous. Quelle surprise.
I made it perfectly clear in my original post why it is I studied the period 1945-1970 (hence the fact that 1983, which does not fall within this range, is excluded.) After 1970 the post-War two-party system began to break down because of the rise of the Liberal vote and that of its various successors, later joined by Ukip, and this has produced rather warped results - David Cameron failing to win a majority with a 7% advantage over Labour in 2010, and Tony Blair winning a comfortable majority despite a share only 3% ahead of the Conservatives in 2005, being amongst the more obvious examples.
My contention is that, with the Lib Dem crunch in 2015 being followed by a Ukip collapse now, England and Wales have reverted very largely to two-party politics at Westminster level, and one way to try to understand what effects that might have is to look at the 25 years after WW2, when the Con-Lab duopoly was at its zenith in terms of both vote and seat share. This doesn't seem a wholly unreasonable approach.
Of much more interest than your punching a few numbers into a UNS calculator (the limitations of which we are all well aware) are the criticisms made by @IanB2, who contends that analysis of older election results is inadequate, primarily because there are fewer marginals in play than there used to be. He may be proven right - I was certainly surprised myself by the majority of around 140 that my line of regression implied for a Tory lead of 10% - but *IF* the Con-Lab vote share margin turns out to be in double digits then we shall be able to tell how far out this simple model actually is. If it turns out to be somewhere in the right ballpark then we may have gained a predictive tool; if it isn't then we can either modify or discard it.
My instinct is that a big unwinding of the Ukip vote, to the substantial net overall benefit of the Conservative Party, coupled with significant regional variations in swing (this election could potentially see a small net swing to Labour in Southern England, if the Greens and Lib Dems are squeezed hard enough, implying above average swings to the Conservatives in the Midlands and North) might bring rather more Labour seats into play than some people assume.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
One change from 2015 is that we know who is in second place in these seats. A lot depends on the balance between anti Tory and anti SNP tactical voting by parties in 3rd or 4th place.
I think SLAB could well be the surprising beneficiaries.
I think the effect of the BBC debate on Monday is a unpredictable feature to stick into the mix. It'll be an interesting test of whether it is better to empty chair a debate or send a replacement. It'll be a lot easier for the others to attack Theresa May for running scared when she actually sends somebody to take her place.
On the other hand if Amber Rudd does very well then it could enhance the Tories by making it look as if their campaign is wider than just "Theresa vs Jeremy".
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Paying £x for a business does not make it worth that much, you have things like goodwill included that would have to be impaired. Plus once the profit motive is removed will the profitability stay the same, will you be able to pay the executives the same if their pay is public knowledge, if gas prices rise say would they be able to raise prices (no, that is the answer).
Will Corbyn be able to borrow at 1.5% on the bond markets? I doubt it.
If the utility companies were nationalised I think you could pretty much guarantee that within a very few years they would be making a loss rather than a profit with their services being subsidised out of the public purse which would still be straining to find the service charge of those bonds. It is a ridiculous idea.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Slightly unfair. Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
The role of government is not to invest cash it doesn't have in the hope of yielding dividends with which funding public services.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
That not only goes against all evidence of history but it is an impossible "have cake and eat it" position. If you give the public cheaper water by eliminating the profits then how are you paying for the interest on the £70bn that was borrowed?
If the utility companies were nationalised I think you could pretty much guarantee that within a very few years they would be making a loss rather than a profit with their services being subsidised out of the public purse which would still be straining to find the service charge of those bonds. It is a ridiculous idea.
Corbyn is desperate to reflate the public sector.
AND remove the public sector pay cap AND repeal all anti Trade Union legislation! If one could emigrate and be a completely dispassionate observer there is something quite appealing about hoping that Corbyn wins and actually has to deal with the logical consequences of what he proposes. See how he would deal with the first 10% pay claims going in, backed by the threat of widespread industrial action, would actually be quite amusing. As he ever, in his long parliamentary career, spoken out against strike action?
I made it perfectly clear in my original post why it is I studied the period 1945-1970 (hence the fact that 1983, which does not fall within this range, is excluded.) After 1970 the post-War two-party system began to break down because of the rise of the Liberal vote and that of its various successors, later joined by Ukip, and this has produced rather warped results - David Cameron failing to win a majority with a 7% advantage over Labour in 2010, and Tony Blair winning a comfortable majority despite a share only 3% ahead of the Conservatives in 2005, being amongst the more obvious examples.
My contention is that, with the Lib Dem crunch in 2015 being followed by a Ukip collapse now, England and Wales have reverted very largely to two-party politics at Westminster level, and one way to try to understand what effects that might have is to look at the 25 years after WW2, when the Con-Lab duopoly was at its zenith in terms of both vote and seat share. This doesn't seem a wholly unreasonable approach.
Of much more interest than your punching a few numbers into a UNS calculator (the limitations of which we are all well aware) are the criticisms made by @IanB2, who contends that analysis of older election results is inadequate, primarily because there are fewer marginals in play than there used to be. He may be proven right - I was certainly surprised myself by the majority of around 140 that my line of regression implied for a Tory lead of 10% - but *IF* the Con-Lab vote share margin turns out to be in double digits then we shall be able to tell how far out this simple model actually is. If it turns out to be somewhere in the right ballpark then we may have gained a predictive tool; if it isn't then we can either modify or discard it.
My instinct is that a big unwinding of the Ukip vote, to the substantial net overall benefit of the Conservative Party, coupled with significant regional variations in swing (this election could potentially see a small net swing to Labour in Southern England, if the Greens and Lib Dems are squeezed hard enough, implying above average swings to the Conservatives in the Midlands and North) might bring rather more Labour seats into play than some people assume.
I agree with you that two party electoral politics are not like three party electoral politics. I'm very interested in your ideas for England. You should write a thread header on them.
Wales is less clearcut given that Plaid Cymru continue to take a fair chunk of votes.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Slightly unfair. Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
I don't see how I could be being unfair in giving the SNP a compliment. Scottish politics is disengaging from rUK, partly for the reasons you have said. When the majority of the decisions that people actually care about are made at Holyrood it is inevitable that these issues will be debated in the campaign even if MPs have increasingly little say on the matters being argued about. As a Unionist I find it a concern but an inevitable consequence of a high level of devolution.
Indyref2 has of course exacerbated the trend this time around, possibly not to the advantage of the SNP in the way that Nicola hoped.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
You mean Labour have let Abbott out again? Are they getting a bit worried that they might actually win?
Marr billing it as who is to be trusted on UK security.
Just back from Canada with bad dose of jet lag.
Went with BA premium class - very poor food and service levels reluctant - arrived home thursday pm and just so sorry for all those flying BA this weekend.
Here, in a nutshell, is why so many of us knew that Corbyn was unelectable. It's not what he said about terror this week, it's 40 years of anti-UK posturing and excusing the inexcusable: https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
With an uptick at the end. Where do we go next? That is the question.
Given the parameters that TSE has set out, I think a lead of 52-98 would be best. I don't want Nick Timothy thinking that the result vindicates him.
Agree - I'd be perfectly happy with that - enough to govern with but a salutary reminder for any ideologues that Tories and ideology usually ends in tears...
As it is now obvious to everyone butill create some very interesting political dynamics over the coming five years and put a lot more pressure on May to deliver on her promises.
I would disagree. It seems Jezza will raise the Labour vote share, so it will not be him to blame for a May victory. Nonetheless I expect him to be replaced within a couple of years, simply due to age. He may well be an effective LOTO for a period of Brexit.
I reckon on a Tory majority of about 75 myself (76 if that keeps TSE happy!).
TM was a useless and ineffective Home Sec, she has been a petulant and inflexible autocratic PM for nearly a year, and been in charge of a supremely useless campaign team. None of this bodes well for the next few years in office.
Labour's vote share may increase. But England is now a two party country once more. So the best we can say is abysmal Tory leader and PM.
The Tory share is likely to increase by about 7-8% from GE 2015. The UKIP share has decreased by about the same amount. May's hard Brexit strategy to attract back UKIP voters has worked.
The Labour share under Corbyn is likely to increase by about 3% from GE 2015 - a good result but not enough to counter May's UKIP strategy which any Labour leader could do little to counter.
Corbyn lost the confidence of Labour MPs, not because of his policies (which are popular) or his character, but because they thought he was a loser (for his party and themselves). But it is hard to blame Corbyn for the success of May's UKIP strategy and apart from that he has done well. I think he will survive.
As May hits trouble with the next recession and with her UKIP support as she makes necessary concessions in the EU negotiations, Labour will take the lead again in the polls and Corbyn will finally be seen as a winner. He will hand over the leadership at a time of his own choosing.
Corbyn never had the confidence of Labour MPs, because they had seen and heard him in action for 40 years. They challenged him last year because he failed totally to lead during the EU referendum and did all he could to undermine the Labour Remain campaign. The result on 8th June will show them to have been entirely correct.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Non tradeable bonds. Then you can defer the interest or principal repayment and it becomes a matter of default rather than anything else.
If they were to try and implement this it would end up in court (and would shut down the capital markets)
Most well documented finance and lease documents will have expropriation based events of default. Would creditors have an interest in waiving these?
I agree with you that two party electoral politics are not like three party electoral politics. I'm very interested in your ideas for England. You should write a thread header on them.
Wales is less clearcut given that Plaid Cymru continue to take a fair chunk of votes.
Thank you for your kind and generous words. I am not so sure that OGH (or many others, for that matter) would be that interested in my musings on ancient election results, but perhaps if the final vote-to-seat share relationship in England and Wales is somewhere close to that which my primitive model would predict then it may attract further interest?
I take your point re: Plaid, but I've not made more of them because they attract a relatively modest share of the vote across Wales as a whole in General Elections, and that in turn is largely concentrated in ultra-safe Labour strongholds in the Valleys, and in the Language Belt: as things currently stand, Plaid's realistic maximum haul of MPs is 5 (i.e. the constituencies down the far Western flank of the country, excluding Pembrokeshire,) and they have an established history of performing relatively modestly even in those (as the stubborn survival of their opponents in Ceredigion and Ynys Mon ably demonstrates.) Of course, Plaid do a good deal better in Assembly elections, but those are a different kettle of fish.
Outside of the Language Belt, Wales is not dissimilar to Northern England in terms of behaviour at Westminster elections.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
Because it is unnecessary and expensive. Far better to have stronger regulation: the state as guarantor rather than provider. That's the 21st century solution.
Here, in a nutshell, is why so many of us knew that Corbyn was unelectable. It's not what he said about terror this week, it's 40 years of anti-UK posturing and excusing the inexcusable: https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
If you look at what Corbyn actually said in the article in the tweet, it looks far more reasonable than the headline, whether you agree with him or not: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed. The trouble with Corbyn as a politician, let alone a leader, is that he could not foresee how it would be used against him.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
I agree on tax lock. Not so convinced on the double lock. Will it save much given inflation?
Everything points to the midterm for the incoming Tory government being brutal. There is enough grief hardwired into the things it will have to do, and considerable risk from external events, particularly the likelihood of economic downturn.
We are due, and Brexit will be painful too. I still dont get why May waited so long to decide to do this, as all the readies would have applied say 2 months earlier.
Here, in a nutshell, is why so many of us knew that Corbyn was unelectable. It's not what he said about terror this week, it's 40 years of anti-UK posturing and excusing the inexcusable: https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
I still think many voters out there don't know this stuff about Corbyn. I don't see the downside of banging on about it for the next 11 days - those that hate it will be determined to keep him from power, by going out to vote - while those that don't know might shudder and be more inclined to sit on their hands on the 8th.....
Do any polling companies ask the recipients 'on a scale of 0/10 how interested are you in politics?', or similar questions that may filter out the over engaged?
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
Indeed. Conservatives are running with scare stories about Labour raising tax and having an uncosted manifesto when it is the their own manifesto the low tax hawks should fear.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
My initial analysis at the start of the campaign suggested 19 SNP seats were at risk from SCon assuming a moderate amount of tactical voting.
Here, in a nutshell, is why so many of us knew that Corbyn was unelectable. It's not what he said about terror this week, it's 40 years of anti-UK posturing and excusing the inexcusable: https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
If you look at what Corbyn actually said in the article in the tweet, it looks far more reasonable than the headline, whether you agree with him or not: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed. The trouble with Corbyn as a politician, let alone a leader, is that he could not foresee how it would be used against him.
I think you are wrong. I think Corbyn has always been using weasel words to mask his true hatred for the British state and his desire for its enemies to give it a bloody nose.
If he really said what he thinks, he would never have got Ma Beckett and others to sign his nomination papers.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
Here, in a nutshell, is why so many of us knew that Corbyn was unelectable. It's not what he said about terror this week, it's 40 years of anti-UK posturing and excusing the inexcusable: https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
I still think many voters out there don't know this stuff about Corbyn. I don't see the downside of banging on about it for the next 11 days - those that hate it will be determined to keep him from power, by going out to vote - while those that don't know might shudder and be more inclined to sit on their hands on the 8th.....
If CCHQ is sending these stories out to their Facebook friends then we must assume Messina is telling them it works, even if there is not much sign of it in the public polls. Apart from that, I am sceptical, and its repeated posting here is presumably aimed at passing journalists rather than pb regulars. It would be interesting to know if the CCHQ Facebook messaging has changed in this regard.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
I agree on tax lock. Not so convinced on the double lock. Will it save much given inflation?
Not immediately which is a good thing as it means it won't be much noticed either. But Sterling has started to recover and if it recovers fully then inflation will fall.back down again and at that point it will save a lot.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
With an uptick at the end. Where do we go next? That is the question.
The x-axis is just number of samples, it isn't correctly spaced for time - as I said it is quick and dirty.
The starting point is when May called the election. The trends and the manifesto effect is even clearer on a 10 poll lag
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
I agree on tax lock. Not so convinced on the double lock. Will it save much given inflation?
That's why I said "and those in the future". Clearly it could probably have been retained for short term expedience for the duration of the next Parliament. But if you're going to take it away, better to do it at a time when it won't make much difference.
Not immediately which is a good thing as it means it won't be much noticed either. But Sterling has started to recover and if it recovers fully then inflation will fall.back down again and at that point it will save a lot.
Sterling’s Brexit-fuelled decline over the past year has been Britain’s “least successful” currency devaluation in history, an analysis of the latest growth figures has revealed.
The UK’s trade balance has worsened by 1.8% of GDP since the final quarter of 2015 — before worries over the EU referendum began to hurt the pound. Rising exports have been outstripped by an even faster rise in imports, according to Samuel Tombs of consultancy Pantheon Macroeconomics.
The figures show that booming exports have so far failed to provide a silver lining to the pound’s slump, which has also driven up inflation and squeezed household spending.
I'm pleased and not in the least surprised that 65% favour hanging, I'm perfectly happy to execute Ian Huntley and Lee Rigby's killers. The problem is that juries can be understandably hesitant where the death penalty is concerned and might let off some very dangerous people.
That said its a futile argument, we're never going to bring back hanging.
Whatever majority she gets May will continue to be what this campaign has confirmed that she is: utterly mediocre; at best. In less than a month she will start negotiating Brexit. God help us.
Whatever majority she gets May will continue to be what this campaign has confirmed that she is: utterly mediocre; at best. In less than a month she will start negotiating Brexit. God help us.
I am as unimpressed as you are by Mrs May's recent performance. But practically everyone would at least at some time look out of his depth in the job of PM. It's not making mistakes that matters, but the capacity to learn from those mistakes. On that a final judgement on Mrs May is surely premature if not unfair.
No on previous form and her spell as PM she has totally confirmed she is CRAP.
You mean Labour have let Abbott out again? Are they getting a bit worried that they might actually win?
Marr billing it as who is to be trusted on UK security.
Just back from Canada with bad dose of jet lag.
Went with BA premium class - very poor food and service levels reluctant - arrived home thursday pm and just so sorry for all those flying BA this weekend.
BA are in a mess
FWIW I wouldn't travel with BA unless I had no choice, based on dreadful experiences with check-in from many years ago. When I went to visit my friend in Calgary I had a choice of two direct services - BA and Air Canada - and went with Air Canada. I don't enjoy flying, but all things considered it was OK.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
Genius indeed.
The social care proposals are the most stinking, fetid, festering, maggotty, putrefied dead cat the world has ever seen, a dead cat so foul and stomach churning that no amount of quicklime can erase its foul miasma.
On the plus side, no-one is talking about the dead foxes either.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
It stops Tories filling their pockets and getting nice jobs with the companies that run the show for them
Given the parameters that TSE has set out, I think a lead of 52-98 would be best. I don't want Nick Timothy thinking that the result vindicates him.
Hm, 200 seat majority, or Nick Timothy out on his arse? A tough one..
Despite all the bedwetting antics of some PB Tories, the ten fundamentals of the election haven't changed a deal from the off and will not all the way to 10pm on June 8
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
With an uptick at the end. Where do we go next? That is the question.
The x-axis is just number of samples, it isn't correctly spaced for time - as I said it is quick and dirty.
The starting point is when May called the election. The trends and the manifesto effect is even clearer on a 10 poll lag
Comments
The vast majority of her support suffer all this because they think the alternative is genuinely appalling and a real threat to the country. It is some way short of a personal endorsement.
One KLAXON is not enough..
Also it would harm private pensions surely as it would depress the stock market as well as tying up any funds invested by pension funds
I'm not going to read too much into it.
17 Scottish Tory MPs, 12 SLab MPs, SNP down to 24 MPs.
I'm filing that in the Angus Reid folder.
I suspect it's an allegory for a contented afterlife, but they do tale things literally.
You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year.
The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt.
If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
I am off for a few days' well-earned holiday in Devon, so I shall sadly not be around to astonish them by agreeing with them! I hope to be back on here in a week's time.
Have a good week everyone.
Roger what to you make of Jezza now ?
Three weeks ago he was a donkey, now he looks like a well hung one.
The PB poll flouncing ignores the fact that if the polling is correct he'll do better than deadhead Ed
The poll movement hasnt been so much Mrs M losing support, but Jezza picking it up to close the gap.
Labour should put up a shrine to Tim Farron for being so crap and allowing the party a chance to survive.
Fox hunting I guess was an error - I still am amazed people vote on the basis of that issue but then what do I know...
But ultimately she will win big, probably biggest Tory majority for 25 years.
I think she is just suffering from some very over inflated expectations.
The correct answer is that, by taking back into public ownership, the public will have cheaper and/or better water and sewerage services. Arguable, of course, but a legitimate position.
But he won't - sub 30 is my prediction. Are there vote share betting markets anywhere ?
But first you have to explain to people - this doesn't mean we have to raise taxes by £70bn and it doesn't mean we are taking £70bn away from the NHS.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
And even the railways - British Rail was hardly the yardstick by which all Govt. ownership should be judged.
The Labour share under Corbyn is likely to increase by about 3% from GE 2015 - a good result but not enough to counter May's UKIP strategy which any Labour leader could do little to counter.
Corbyn lost the confidence of Labour MPs, not because of his policies (which are popular) or his character, but because they thought he was a loser (for his party and themselves). But it is hard to blame Corbyn for the success of May's UKIP strategy and apart from that he has done well. I think he will survive.
As May hits trouble with the next recession and with her UKIP support as she makes necessary concessions in the EU negotiations, Labour will take the lead again in the polls and Corbyn will finally be seen as a winner. He will hand over the leadership at a time of his own choosing.
I'm all for it borrowing for infrastructural improvements. If the plan was to nationalise water so that the government could make necessary infrastructural improvements that would be impossible with the current ownership arrangements, then fine. That's not what is on offer though, is it?
SNP 41
Con 15
Lab 3
I expect the SNP total would be closer to 41 than 24 on a 39% poll share.
Got to admit though, seeing Sturgeon and Salmond on Friday 9th with red eyes and wobbly bottom lips - that would be a helluva bonus.....
I made it perfectly clear in my original post why it is I studied the period 1945-1970 (hence the fact that 1983, which does not fall within this range, is excluded.) After 1970 the post-War two-party system began to break down because of the rise of the Liberal vote and that of its various successors, later joined by Ukip, and this has produced rather warped results - David Cameron failing to win a majority with a 7% advantage over Labour in 2010, and Tony Blair winning a comfortable majority despite a share only 3% ahead of the Conservatives in 2005, being amongst the more obvious examples.
My contention is that, with the Lib Dem crunch in 2015 being followed by a Ukip collapse now, England and Wales have reverted very largely to two-party politics at Westminster level, and one way to try to understand what effects that might have is to look at the 25 years after WW2, when the Con-Lab duopoly was at its zenith in terms of both vote and seat share. This doesn't seem a wholly unreasonable approach.
Of much more interest than your punching a few numbers into a UNS calculator (the limitations of which we are all well aware) are the criticisms made by @IanB2, who contends that analysis of older election results is inadequate, primarily because there are fewer marginals in play than there used to be. He may be proven right - I was certainly surprised myself by the majority of around 140 that my line of regression implied for a Tory lead of 10% - but *IF* the Con-Lab vote share margin turns out to be in double digits then we shall be able to tell how far out this simple model actually is. If it turns out to be somewhere in the right ballpark then we may have gained a predictive tool; if it isn't then we can either modify or discard it.
My instinct is that a big unwinding of the Ukip vote, to the substantial net overall benefit of the Conservative Party, coupled with significant regional variations in swing (this election could potentially see a small net swing to Labour in Southern England, if the Greens and Lib Dems are squeezed hard enough, implying above average swings to the Conservatives in the Midlands and North) might bring rather more Labour seats into play than some people assume.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
I think SLAB could well be the surprising beneficiaries.
On the other hand if Amber Rudd does very well then it could enhance the Tories by making it look as if their campaign is wider than just "Theresa vs Jeremy".
Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
Wales is less clearcut given that Plaid Cymru continue to take a fair chunk of votes.
What an own goal.
Can't wait for Monday...
Indyref2 has of course exacerbated the trend this time around, possibly not to the advantage of the SNP in the way that Nicola hoped.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
Just back from Canada with bad dose of jet lag.
Went with BA premium class - very poor food and service levels reluctant - arrived home thursday pm and just so sorry for all those flying BA this weekend.
BA are in a mess
https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
"It is, after all, becoming increasingly clear that Strong and Stable are pseudonyms for Jekyll and Hyde."
"The Tory manifesto wasn’t costed and hasn’t survived first contact with voters."
http://labourlist.org/2017/05/dan-jarvis-tory-manifesto-shows-theresa-may-has-assumed-the-politics-of-trump/
I take your point re: Plaid, but I've not made more of them because they attract a relatively modest share of the vote across Wales as a whole in General Elections, and that in turn is largely concentrated in ultra-safe Labour strongholds in the Valleys, and in the Language Belt: as things currently stand, Plaid's realistic maximum haul of MPs is 5 (i.e. the constituencies down the far Western flank of the country, excluding Pembrokeshire,) and they have an established history of performing relatively modestly even in those (as the stubborn survival of their opponents in Ceredigion and Ynys Mon ably demonstrates.) Of course, Plaid do a good deal better in Assembly elections, but those are a different kettle of fish.
Outside of the Language Belt, Wales is not dissimilar to Northern England in terms of behaviour at Westminster elections.
If he really said what he thinks, he would never have got Ma Beckett and others to sign his nomination papers.
The starting point is when May called the election. The trends and the manifesto effect is even clearer on a 10 poll lag
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/868738511708577792
The UK’s trade balance has worsened by 1.8% of GDP since the final quarter of 2015 — before worries over the EU referendum began to hurt the pound. Rising exports have been outstripped by an even faster rise in imports, according to Samuel Tombs of consultancy Pantheon Macroeconomics.
The figures show that booming exports have so far failed to provide a silver lining to the pound’s slump, which has also driven up inflation and squeezed household spending.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/pounds-fall-the-worst-devaluation-in-history-czkfwhznc
That said its a futile argument, we're never going to bring back hanging.
The social care proposals are the most stinking, fetid, festering, maggotty, putrefied dead cat the world has ever seen, a dead cat so foul and stomach churning that no amount of quicklime can erase its foul miasma.
On the plus side, no-one is talking about the dead foxes either.
Would help Corbyn get close to 200 seats or above though.
32 seats at risk though, I cannot credit that.
Appalling, appalling, appalling......